SIDDHARTH SHIVNATH SHIRODKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties.

(2.) his is a petition that throws a challenge to order dtd. 24/3/2025 passed by the JMFC, Sattari at Valpoi. By the impugned order the Magistrate has closed the cross-examination of the witness - PW1.

(3.) It appears that the accused in the present matter is an Advocate with considerable seniority and experience at the Bar. On the relevant day, the accused, being an advocate, made a request to the Court to be allowed to cross-examine the witness - PW1 by himself rather than the cross be conducted through his advocate who was also present on that day. It also appears from the record, and as recorded in the impugned order that the advocate for the accused expressed her inability to cross-examine the witness, and stated that the Court may allow the accused to conduct the cross-examination. he Court refused the request and since the advocate for the accused had no instructions, the cross-examination was closed on that day.